The sport's new era needs to be articulated much more forcefully if it is to
prosper in the face of Bernie Ecclestone's criticism, writes Daniel Johnson

At the mention of Gerald Ratner, the jeweller who told an audience at the Royal Albert Hall in 1991 he was selling “total c***”, many in the Bahrain paddock looked a tad confused.

Ratner? Was he yet another mysterious character in the saga surrounding Bernie Ecclestone’s trial for bribery? But some Brits immediately twigged what Pat Symonds, the hugely experienced and respected technical boss at Williams, was getting at.

Ratner’s famous speech, which wiped nearly £500 million of his company’s value, pushing it towards collapse, was a perfect and succinct parallel for Formula One’s latest skirmish over its green revolution.

F1 is a sport with no marketing department, a promoter who appears to relish any opportunity to talk it into oblivion, and a whole host of teams who are more than happy to express their dissatisfaction, publicly and privately, at a set of regulations which have pushed them further down the competitive order than they would normally countenance.

Adrian Newey, the sport’s pre-eminent designer, and a man whose opinion carries considerable weight, as it rightly should, took almost every chance to have a convoluted dig at the rules in a press conference last weekend. Ferrari too, released a fans’ survey after just one race of the season to ask whether people liked the new formula. After two dull races, the answer was only ever going to be no.

All of the above are entitled to their opinion. They have achieved so much success and longevity in the sport that their views should be taken seriously. Their warnings are given weight and comprehensive coverage. Clearly, after the race in Sakhir, many have been premature in their judgements, but they are free to be so.

The real issue has been the almost total absence of any kind of counterbalance. With the exception of Mercedes – in particular, the team’s technical executive Paddy Lowe – and McLaren, as well as some of the midfield teams, the new regulations have been left to fend for themselves. Against the might of Ecclestone, Red Bull, Sebastian Vettel and Ferrari, they did not stand a chance in the public’s perception.

As Max Mosley, the body’s former president, told Telegraph Sport over lunch this week: “'If there is one thing I feel could have been done better it is how the new regulations, and the reasons behind them, have been explained to the public. An opportunity has been missed.”

A bad taste has already been left in the mouth of some fans, and overcoming that negativity is a bigger challenge than it needed to be. Bahrain, touted by some as the greatest race of the century, certainly helped, but plenty more needs to be done.

The move to hybrid engines, as Mosley pointed out, has been a decade in the making. With all the testing in factories it is incredible that issues over the engine noise could not have been warded off before the first outing in Jerez, at the end of January. The FIA now has to play catch up, with a test planned next month in Barcelona to explore some possible solutions.

In the FIA’s defence, it is not really in their job description to promote the sport. And as Jean Todt, Mosley’s successor, admitted last weekend, they are aware of the shortcomings so far.

“It is education,” the Frenchman says. “You need to explain to people that the drivers are driving flat out from the first to the last lap. You need to explain what is the flow meter, and at the moment, we at the FIA as well, need to do a better job to explain exactly what are the new regulations.

“The supporters: they don’t know completely what the new regulation is. I must say, they are complex. Nobody has explained properly the difference between 2013 and 2014. All that needs to be explained better.”

The FIA are keen to stress that Todt is a man of action, not a man of words. He is obviously less comfortable in front of the cameras than his predecessor. But at the moment, words and a clear message are what is needed if the sport’s fresh direction is to prosper in the face of the PR onslaught of Ecclestone and co.

There needs to be a relentless explanation of why the changes were critical (Mercedes' suggestion earlier this week that they may have left the sport without the new engines was a timely reminder), and what could have happened if F1 stuck with the V8s of old.

As Mosley puts it: “It is important for Formula One to evolve. Safety was the big challenge of the 20th century and the environment is the big challenge of the 21st. If that fact is not understood and embraced, the sport runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.

“Corporate social responsibility is important for car manufacturers, so there is a need to move in this direction so the sport does not lose sponsors and manufacturers. They see how important this technology is in the development of road cars.”

While this view has been articulated, it has not been done frequently enough or with the required vigour. The riposte to Ecclestone’s claim circuits are tittering on the edge of leaving the sport should be repeated reminders that F1 could have been left with one, maybe two, engine suppliers if the status quo had remained.

This is not to say one side of the argument is worthier than the other, but the FIA’s vision needs to be reiterated. It is worrying that in response to proposals the race distance could be shortened – an almost sacred principle of F1 for decades – the guardian of the sport’s rules could suggest that as long as there is “unanimous agreement” among the various stakeholders, he is not overly concerned.

It should not be surprising that the teams who are prospering under the new regulations are the keenest to talk up their virtues. Conversely, the sport should have been able to anticipate that those teams who have lost ground would let their displeasure be known.

That is the nature of Formula One. But this is where the FIA must step in to make sure the new era is not talked into oblivion.

Regardless of their merits or faults, Formula One has these new engines for the foreseeable future, and the public could do with hearing a little more than that they are, to put it bluntly, “total c***”.